"Reliability is not just a matter of not losing data - hopefully XFS is already good at that"
Heh, having lost an entire filesystem (and zeroed-out files on another filesystem) to XFS a while back, I find that wording grimly amusing. In my experience it really was quite good at losing data.
But seriously, XFS has long had a reputation for being more likely to eat your data than its Linux competition, at least in non-server-room use cases. Have they really fixed that? I mean, yes "hopefully" they have, but it would be good to know beyond just hope before we start switching to it based on speed.